Update: After we reached out to a Google representative, the company gave us the following statement:

We’ve been working closely with the European Commission and consumer protection agencies for the last few months to make improvements to Google Play that will be good for our users and provide better protections for children.

The representative was unable to comment on potential changes for the Play Store in the US or other non-European locations.

--

Consumer unrest over the prevalence of in-app purchases in free-to-play games has grown as of late, and nowhere is it more apparent than in Europe. The European Commission, the EU's legislative arm, has issued instructions to both Google and Apple to more accurately market the erstwhile "free" games. They've also instructed both companies not to encourage children to buy virtual items with real money after considerable complaints from consumers. Today the Commission reported on its progress, including a favorable response from Google.

In a surprising move, Google has committed to stop referring to games with in-app purchases as free. That's a hard rule, with very little room for interpretation. From the European Commission's press release (emphasis ours):

These [changes] include not using the word "free" at all when games contain in-app purchases, developing targeted guidelines for its app developers to prevent direct exhortation to children as defined under EU law and time-framed measures to help monitor apparent breaches of EU consumer laws.

This doesn't mean that the thousands of free-to-play games with IAP in the Play Store will be re-labeled, just that Google will stop referring to them as such. That means no more IAP games in the various "free" promotions that show up on the Play Store home page, and presumably, Google will no longer allow free games with IAP in the "Top Free" list either. (Incidentally, 8 out of 10 of the games at the top of the "Top Free" Play Store list on my phone use in-app purchases.) Game developers and publishers will probably still be able to describe their IAP games as "free," unless Google changes its Play Store policies. But given the EU's recent crackdown, developers may decide to re-align their marketing as well.

Other changes to Google's policies will involve always-on password checks for purchases as a default setting, and developer guidelines that instruct game devs never to pressure children to buy virtual items with real money (or ask their parents to). Google has committed to making these changes by the end of September.

Now for the big question: will Google implement similar changes in the United States version of the Play Store or elsewhere? So far the US hasn't had the same vitriolic blowback against the free-to-play model, outside of some vocal dedicated gamers (including yours truly) and a few parents. Google's response to the Commission is presumably only applicable to the Play Store as it appears in EU nations. Frankly, there's a lot of money to be made with free-to-play games (sometimes a depressingly huge amount), and Google gets a cut of each transaction. It wouldn't be out of the question for Google to keep the status quo until the laws of each country or territory force them to do otherwise.

We've reached out to a Google representative from the United States for comment on this story, and we'll update if we receive a response.

Following a large number of complaints in EU countries concerning in-app purchases in online games and in particular inadvertent purchases by children, national authorities joined forces with the European Commission to find solutions.

The coordinated enforcement action in the EU on in-app purchases in online and mobile games has made real progress in delivering tangible results. Industry has made a number of engagements which seek to address consumer concerns. The action will increase consumer confidence in the fast-growing "app" sector.

"This is the very first enforcement action of its kind in which the European Commission and national authorities joined forces. I am happy to see that it is delivering tangible results. This is significant for consumers. In particular, children must be better protected when playing online. The action also provides invaluable experience for the ongoing reflection on how to most effectively organise the enforcement of consumer rights in the Union. It has demonstrated that cooperation pays off and helps to improve the protection of consumers in all Member States," said EU Commissioner for Consumer Policy Neven Mimica.

Vice President Neelie Kroes, responsible for the Digital Agenda, added: "The Commission is very supportive of innovation in the app sector. In-app purchases are a legitimate business model, but it's essential for app-makers to understand and respect EU law while they develop these new business models".

A common position agreed by national authorities within the CPC network and communicated to Apple, Google and the Interactive Software Federation of Europe in December 2013(1) asked that:

Games advertised as "free" should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved;

Games should not contain direct exhortation to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them;

Consumers should be adequately informed about the payment arrangements for purchases and should not be debited through default settings without consumers’ explicit consent;

Traders should provide an email address so that consumers can contact them in case of queries or complaints.

Making use of the consumer protection cooperation mechanism provided by EU rules, Apple, Google and relevant trade associations were asked to provide concrete solutions across the EU to the concerns raised.

Google has decided on a number of changes. Implementation is underway and will be completed by the end of September 2014. These include not using the word "free" at all when games contain in-app purchases, developing targeted guidelines for its app developers to prevent direct exhortation to children as defined under EU law and time-framed measures to help monitor apparent breaches of EU consumer laws. It has also adapted its default settings, so that payments are authorised prior to every in-app purchase, unless the consumer actively chooses to modify these settings.

Although, regrettably, no concrete and immediate solutions have been made by Apple to date to address the concerns linked in particular to payment authorisation, Apple has proposed to address those concerns. However, no firm commitment and no timing have been provided for the implementation of such possible future changes. CPC authorities will continue to engage with Apple to ensure that it provides specific details of changes required and put its practices into line with the common position.

Member States enforcers and the European Commission have also invited the associations of online game developers and platforms to reflect on concrete measures that they could take to address the issues raised in the common position, including the possibility for guidelines or standards incorporating the CPC position.

Enforcement, including possible legal action, is in the hands of the national authorities which will now consider how to address outstanding legal issues.

The European Commission and Member States will continue to monitor the issue and in particular the extent to which the engagements made have addressed in practice the concerns raised in the CPC position.

Don't forget the worst of them all: Free + P2W (Pay to Win) --> No initial cost unless you want to enjoy the game, at all

someone755

Waiting for EA to pull through and amaze us with a $$$ + P2W game.

lemonnnnz

$$$ + P2W is just the trial version of the game.

abobobilly

Aren't they already using such a strategy in their "Real Racing 3"?

beomagi

Most cars and upgrades at regular currency you win each race. generally if you can race it, you can win with a weaker car anyway. It's only bots. RR3 is more like pay to get 100% completion.

abobobilly

Yep, you are right on that last one. "Pay to get 100% completion". Because you just cannot complete it fully without paying a hefty amount. And i am not talking about like $100 ... it'd take more than $4000 to actually finish this game.

I have actually played that game for more than a year. And not like casual play. I used to play it DAILY for like 3-4 hours. Don't remember exactly but i have spent THOUSANDS of hours in it. I ever got some of the premium cars, like CCX.

Its a brilliant game though, and i loved it to death (which explains why I would play it regularly). Its just that the amount of IAPs and the money/time it takes to 'actually' finish this, is just absurd.

So playing it for an eternity, i finally parted ways with it and got back to my real life.

I think that replaying it to the death until I get perfect score (and switching back categories and cars so I could get better scores than my friends) helped me getting more of the game money.

Yes, progress is slow but I did not bother getting the thing finished that fast. I finished the original Dead Trigger way too early and I regret it so...

beomagi

If you're not playing to 100% it's easy to progress. However, the latest leman's + levelup gold bonus makes it possible to complete it in a few months. !/2 hour play nets 35 gold at my level, So I've been buying up some cars recently.

Yan, are you referring to the 100 gold awarded for being in the top 1% global for time trials or the regular gold given for completion points?

Yeah what abobobilly is stating still stands though. you earn a bit from that to let you buy some gold only upgrades, and some gold only cars, but not enough to own everything. The new Toyota is 1000 gold for example, and would need another 2-300 to be competitive in the leman race.
Although the last update makes grinding for gold plus the completion bonus to complete everything a possibility. If I run 3 leman races a day, I'm looking at 2500-3000 gold a month.

someone755

No, RR3 is free to download, and it's mostly the full game (other than a few cars requiring Real Money 400 (dollars)). It's not hardcore "P2W" but paying sure does help (a car upgrade takes like 24 hours on some cars).

Eric Hoch

You're missing a few dollar signs on that last one.

dude

Lol on the $$$.

dude

BTW, the $ + IAP assholes refer to GameLoft, I don't support them.

Thomas’

This is less about parenting or your nanny-state whining, but more about false advertising.

tekfr33kn

How is it false advertising when every app with IAP's clearly lists "Contain's In-App Purchases" at the top pf the listing? This actually is nanny state EU thinking.

h4rr4r

Because either the game is free and no money will be spent on it or not. These games are not intended to be free to play, they are free for the first hit and then like every crack dealer they want their payday. So calling them free is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.

tekfr33kn

It's only misleading if you chose to remain uninformed. Usually a quick browse of the comments tells you all you need to know and many devs will tell you about the IAP's in the description now. A little reading helps every time.

h4rr4r

That is still misleading.
If I select the category free games, I should expect to see games that have no monetary costs at all.

Your claim is like saying I should be able to open a store and place the beer under a sign that says "FREE BEER" in giant text and then under each case of beer place a small notice saying this beer is not free please pay for it at the register.

tekfr33kn

Then shame on you for not reading. Should you be let out of your car payments because there is fine print? By you logic you shouldn't even have a child. They aren't clearly labeled as having in-life purchases.

Thomas

Sure if it's free, I'd expect it to be free.

Otherwise, there's a gap in expectations between F2P Games and legally binding contracts. Sure you should be clever enough to figure th at one out, after all you aren't uninformed now are you?

Guest

So if some place offered a FREE Blu-Ray Player as a prize or something, you'd call them out on it because you have to pay $ on movies in order to use it?

tekfr33kn

Nope. That's my point. Thanks for playing.

Thomas

To make the analogy apt, it's more the equivalent of getting a "FREE*" Blu-Ray player and getting home to discover that it will only play DVD's until you pay a $5 unlock for Blu-Ray discs.

Mayoo

Except in this case, the game will work. It won't be locked.

Thomas

Except the Blu-Ray player also works, just not with Blu-Rays :)

If it makes you feel better the Blu-Ray unlock besides being bought for $5 could also be obtained by watching 90 days of DVD's.

h4rr4r

The print size on my car loan was all one size. Yes, I read it.

Children are not purchased as far as I understand, I think that is illegal.

tekfr33kn

But they still cost money. Some parents chose not to spend it. Generally we try to hold them responsible. So, get an app with IAPs. Have your kid rack up a $1000 bill and be responsible for it.

h4rr4r

Better idea, let me opt out of ever seeing any application with IAP in the play market. I am never going to download them, so why waste my time?

hocestquisumus

games yes. but there are a few apps with useful IAPs that come to mind. yatse is such an example - great free remote for XBMC. want to stream stuff to your tablet? that'll cost a few cents in-app. no harm there. but a virtual princess crown or money for imps who dig faster? no way.

I love the victim blaming going on here - the companies are deliberately trying to mislead people, but no that's perfectly fine. The truly awful people are the people who get scammed. Yeah, real rational.

tekfr33kn

Let's explain how your premise is completely false, shall we. "Companies are deliberately trying to mislead" - The change the EU is demanding has to do with how Google displays apps. It has nothing to do with the actions of any company. "Victim blaming" - How is one's inability to read a clearly marked label stating that an app Contains In-app Purchases, creating a victim? "The truly awful people are the people who get scammed. - This makes no sense unless you are saying tha "scammed" people are awful. Personal responsibility is going the way of the dinosaur and being replaced by nanny-state fear mongering.

Mitcheris

Well, better analogy would be a sign that says "FREE BEER" and they give you free beer, but you gotta pay for the chicken, which REALLY HELPS to actually enjoy the beer to the fullest (I won't take any objection here).
No chicken, and the beer may be meh, but free beer is free beer nonetheless. That existential fact does not change merely because you gotta pay for additional components.

Anthony Wingfield

No it's like saying free beer..then giving them a tiny free beer and then saying if you want more you have to pay

Sgt Bob

I agree, it's misleading and fraudulent. Even common sense can tell if a game is really free-for-good or have hidden cost.

@tekfr33kn:disqus
you seem to defend this IAP scheme a lot, are you one of those a-holes developers?

Pooka-kun

He never said IAPs are good, as you first thought. He's saying that its not false advertising but nanny state thinking, because you know, duh, if an app has IAPs, it will be listed on the Google Play Store. No, you won't find IAPs in a free app if Google Play makes no mention of In-app purchases. This is when a parent's lack of supervision IS RESPONSIBLE not Google nor the developers of the app. End of the story.

someone755

Either it's free (as in, you don't need to pay money ever, never) or it's not (meaning you either pay now or sometime later, even if it is optional).

tekfr33kn

Since it's clearly labeled with IAP's, you already have the need or the option to pay. Just set your password and don't tell your kids what it is or *gasp* don't give the phone to them.

Mayoo

I agree, and I am trying to stay polite to the others. You can't expect Google to take responsibility of your own choices. If this is so, please, by all means, I encourage you to buy an Apple device and stay away from this website.

EU: "Google, we have turned off our brains and have false expectations. Hold our hand and walk us through this cruel world because we can't manage it ourselves."
Google: "Because you made us, OK."

Toboe

Yeah, changing wording and a default option is the same as
"Hold our hand and walk us through this cruel world because we can't manage it ourselves"

How DARE those pussies demand more accurate wording, freedom!!!!11oneeleven

Thomas

Doesn't matter how it's labeled, whether it's big print or small print, if you say something is free, it is free, not part of it, not terms and conditions apply, it's free, end of discussion.

Games with IAP are not free, and honestly Google/Apple should've done this at their own volition a lot earlier as it doesn't serve their customers well with it being harder to distinguish "FREE" from "FREE*"

tekfr33kn

Ah, but there's the rub. It is free. Even if it has IAP's you are not forced to pay them. You can delete the game, grind through or just ignore the shiny pop-ups. If it's labeled as having IAP's then you, as the consumer, have already been made aware that you may have to or want to make a purchase in an otherwise free app. It's your own expectation that needs the change, not the label. Caution: Hot coffee is hot.

Pooka-kun

Yes, this post nails it. You were already made aware that the game has IAPs, its your responsibility, so that's why nanny state thinking is the way to think about this move.

Thomas

It's law, not my expectation that has to change.

As law hasn't changed, developers or more precisely publishers who advertise these games as free, have to change THEIR expectations, as they are currently doing.

Sorry that the law disagrees with your opinion, but your insults are either pointed in the wrong direction or doesn't make sense, you're free to choose the option that makes you appear the least dumb.

someone755

To be honest, we here do have different expectations.
We here stand behind the fact that if you press a button in an app and it demands payment, it is not free. It might be free up to that point where you buy (which is what you're saying), but it should not be called "Free" in the store because it isn't always free.
We think it's misleading, you say we have the "Includes IAPs" sign which makes it not misleading, we counter that, you counter our point again etc.

This debate isn't going anywhere, nobody's views are getting changed, all we're gonna do is feed the good 'ol troll and possibly start a flame war. xD

Vishnu Vadlamudi

So according to you, is the Netflix app not free as it requires a subscription?

andy_o

Everything you say is still possible without the use of misleading terms. What is your problem with being explicitly clear?

tekfr33kn

How is "Contains In-App Purchases" not clear? How is that misleading?

Pooka-kun

Do I seriously need to take a capture of a Google Play game page of an app? Ok, here you go. If you didn't notice this before, you're blind.

Cause you're focusing on the wrong term. "Free" is the one that is ambiguous at best, misleading at worst.

Pooka-kun

Nah, In-App Purchases is as CLEAR and CRYSTAL as it is now. If you think it is misleading, YOUR problem. Deal with it.

andy_o

For dog's sake get this in your skull: We have no problem with "In-app purchases" We have a problem with FREE, which is ambiguous at best. Just because you contradict the label of
"free" in the deeper description of the app doesn't mean you get to blame people for being mislead.

Pooka-kun

For cat's sake, get this through your skull; if that IAP tag is mentioned in the Play Store page of an app, then the rest is simple; people being mislead is THEIR OWN PROBLEM. Google made it crystal clear that the free app has IAPs, and its one of the first things you see when visiting a Google Play page. Therefore, if people still decide to yell because they found out it has IAPs after installation, no wonder they're blind and can't read a tiny page of an app.

This is a case where Google is held responsible for the user's actions when actually the user has no reason to make Google responsible, the only thing the user could fairly do is blame themselves for not telling their kids what's an IAP and not to touch it. This is nanny state thinking.

EowynCarter

Yup, but i wouldn't mind having the info directly in the app list.

Thomas

They say they expect all changes done by September 2014, so I really hope they'll get a category for themselves so the real free category can be back.

EowynCarter

That's one thng where apple did stuff right.

someone755

Lolno I'm against kids under 8 even touching a phone.
There's a small sign that says "Includes IAPs" somewhere under the title but lost of people I know never even saw that (even though they soon realized there were IAPs).
I still stand with the EU court on this -- mark it as paid if it requires or will require, under any circumstances and any button pressed, a payment.

Pooka-kun

I agree with tekfr33kn!

The game is labelled as free, and also Google indicates it has "In-app purchasing". If you FAIL to see this, its seriously your problem, not Google's, not the developer's. ITS YOUR PROBLEM. End of the story. Stop arguing.

abobobilly

In a way, i'd agree with @Thomas' because the word "Contains In-App Purchases" is not mentioned very explicitly and is generally hidden from users' direct view. User will have to scroll down and look in Description to be able to find out if it contains In-App purchase.

1) The whole IAP thing is made to extract more money from kids - if it wasn't you'd pay for the app/game upfront and no IAP. You can argue against this all you want but you are just being naive.

2) Google/Apple should have had 3 categories from the start - Paid, IAP and Free. Then there would be no confusion.

Adults for the most part do not have an issue figuring out if it's IAP or really free - but kids do and they do not think about the ramifications of spending $1000 on pixels to beat their friends.

When is the last time you heard about an IAP app/game that required parental okay for purchases or limited someone's purchases per day - notified parents of purchases etc. - it's all about the $ and IAP is a way to extract it easier from kids.

AOSPrevails

Brainwash your kids(read Brave New World if you don't know how) to stay away from IAP games and your wallet will do fine.

Steve Freeman

No offense, but bull. If you don't attach a credit card to your child's Google Play account, then he or she can't make any IAP's. Or if you require the password for each IAP, then he or she can't make any IAP's. It's called responsibility.

My mom and I went in on a Nabi tablet for my nephew/her grandson, who recently turned 4. And instead of attaching a credit card to his new Google or Amazon appstore accounts, we didn't. Cause ya know what? We don't trust him. Because he's a child.

Funny thing is, they were out here visiting last week, and my mom was going through some apps with him on Google Play, looking for new games to install for him, and he pointed some out to my mom and told her "No, those need tokens", before my mom realized it.

Mikkel Georgsen

Steve - you should add that's how it is in your area. For most of the world credit cards are not needed for buying apps/games or doing IAP.

Steve Freeman

Seriously? I actually had no idea that was the case. So how do you do it outside of the US? Do you have to purchase Google Play gift cards or something, and use those? Or is it via carrier billing? I know that's an option in the US, but I never went that route.

Mitcheris

They said it's a free game, not a "free unless you actually wanna enjoy" or "free unless you wanna win" game. Free is free, regardless of whether you are then offer additions at cost, no matter how significant in relative terms the additions are to what's available otherwise.
Yes, it may be a bad free game without thhe IAP, but a free game nontheless, and in no way misleading.

abobobilly

You my friend, are not really feeling the intensity of "false advertising".

In my country Pakistan, DSL is offered under "Unlimited" tag, but those mofos simply put a "star" infront of that word and then WAYYY down below the page, in tiniest possible letter, they mention "300GB Limit shall be applicable to ensure fair usage", whatever that means. And they can get away with it too, because there is no such thing as consume law which could make these f*cking corporations stop misusing these words.

So in this case, when they say "Free", they actually are hiding the "real" story underneath. So deep down i applaud European Commission for taking action on it. And i hope they see it through.

Adrian Meredith

Its the same tactic ebay sellers used to use. "xbox 99p"! but its then £200 delivery....

Raymond Hawkins

I personally think free-to-play is wonderful. It has to be done right, and often isn't, but in and of itself it's not bad. Several apps in both the top free and top grossing categories are really good games that are honestly just as fun to play without spending money on them.

OhYeah!

Not as fun to play. You have to wait for more lives to accrue or jump through other hoops. Free to play is terrible.

Raymond Hawkins

Eh. I don't find that to be the case with the ones I play. Granted, there are a lot I don't play.

Godspoken

I agree. Good F2P games are ones that delight me with their gameplay free of charge, perhaps with some sort of meter limiting me to a couple hours of play in a day, that make me WANT to purchase cosmetic items to pay the developers for their hard work.

Still better than having none at all. Besides, it's no longer just cloud save anymore, they evolved the service to a Saved Games API to allow the user see and select their saved games, synced across all their devices they are logged into. This will be very important as Android TV approaches especially.

Raymond Hawkins

I've thought the same! I refuse to play anything that doesn't have cloud save, so would find this very useful!

In every review of every game I try or actually like, if it doesn't have some form of cloud save/GPG, I make sure the dev understands whether the game is good or not, and then make note that I cannot support or keep their game installed without cloud save/google play games support. That simple.
I've got a huge steam library and a good selection of GPG compliant android games, so I don't miss those games I abandon at all.

What ever happened to the cloudsave/saved games badge? I never actually seen any game with a cloud save badge even when it does support it. On the web, there's no badges visible. Pretty bad on Google's part to keep consistency.

OhYeah!

HELL YEAH! They aren't free, they are crippled, work for only a while, or nag the hell out of you.

IAP aren't a bad concept, but developers or tie-wearers often make them (and F2P as a whole) awfully misleading. Free to play, pay to win. I think Google's move isn't a bad idea.

Aren't games and apps with IAPs shown in lists like Top Grossing anyway?

Thomas

Unfortunately it appears that all Google has done is removed "Free" from the text, so everything works as it used to be, but instead of free, it's now and top games.

I'd worry about but really it's Google that should be worried abouy , hopefully they'll shove IAP games into a little dusty corner of their store like they deserve.

tekfr33kn

EU, leading the way in nanny-state mentality. Sadly, the US is following them like a puppy.

h4rr4r

Regulating advertising is a normal function of the state. WIthout that google could claim buying an N5 will cure your cancer.

tekfr33kn

OK, but this isn't regulating. It's like telling people not to iron their clothes while in the shower. This is hand holding for parents that got caught with a big bill and don't feel like paying. Teach your kids well and you don't have to worry so much about it. If they are too young or don't understand, then don't give them the phone.

h4rr4r

This is regulating. This is the EU regulating how google markets these products.

Honestly I don't see kids being the primary concern, simply that this is a dishonest method of marketing these products.

tekfr33kn

Then read the article more closely. This regulation came about because of parents who were caught with big bills because they didn't regulate their kids. The excuse of marketing is lame. That's like saying Joe Camel makes kids smoke. It was a dumb excuse then too.

Thomas

The regulation didn't come about, it always existed, however the increase in the market, plus the following severe violations made the problem big enough that they told Google to fix it.

Google could decline to fix it if they want to.

That would be unwise of course as it would definitely violate consumer laws here, and I suppose many other places in europe.

h4rr4r

Why the action started is less important than the findings.
Joe Camel at least did not try to claim his cigarettes were free.

MindFever

At least inform yourself before making such claims...jesus

tekfr33kn

I am informed. That's why I'm not afraid of stupidity. BTW, calling on God's son doesn't absolve you of that stupidity.

Michael Nedoma

Yes, of the state.. However, EU is not a state (yet.....?).

h4rr4r

The EU is a politico-economic union of many states. The actual enforcement would likely be at the state level if google were to violate this.

h4rr4r

Good, now let me filter them out so I never see them.

josuearisty

I remenber when I paid 5 dollars for a paid game and I had access to everything. Now I can download it for free but I have to pay more 50 to access to everything.

helenjsmith

before I looked at the check of $8543 , I accept
...that...my neighbour woz like they say truley earning money parttime on their
apple labtop. . there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only 19 months and by
now cleared the debts on their house and bourt a gorgeous Ford . visit this
site C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

black

You'll be missing out on a lot of cool games with that dumbass mindset of yours.

ziggurqt

"A lot" is kind of an exaggeration. There's not even a lot of cool games on Android.

thedosbox

This would be too sensible for google to implement.

andy_o

We no need consumer protection in murica because FREEDOM.

MindFever

That's why your mobile carriers are having a field day at consumers' expense and crappy service. Good job!

I'm proud to say that I don't have any "Glu" games installed or played.

namesib

Yep. I used to like Glu in the pre-touchscreen era... Now they are just a no-go developer for me.

Toboe

I think "unplayable without IAPs"-P2W is a sufficient reason for a 1star rating.

Zewks

Dungeon keeper comes to mind

CoreRooted

Asphalt 8 (Gameloft in general) is absolutely guilty of this with their recent changes. $99 US for 2 cars and then all the other IAP lumped on top of it to be able to have any kind of a competitive edge is simply ridiculous.

abobobilly

Add "Real Racing 3" to that stuff as well.

Adrian Meredith

That game makes me so sad, theres a AAA mobile game in there somewhere....

abobobilly

Don't tell me, because i have actually played that game for more than a year. And not like casual play. I used to play it DAILY for like 3-4 hours. Don't remember exactly but i have spent THOUSANDS of hours in it.

Its a brilliant game though. Its just that the amount of IAPs and the money/time it takes to 'actually' finish this, is just absurd.

So playing it for an eternity, i finally parted ways with it and got back to my real life.

beomagi

There's no need to pay there at all though if you don't mind grinding for a little. They have made recent changes where you get a lot more gold too. Levelling up is giving me 35 gold, and there's one race that levels you almost every run.

abobobilly

You are preaching to the wrong person. Because i have actually played that game for more than a year. And not like casual play. I used to play it DAILY for like 3-4 hours. Don't remember exactly but i have spent THOUSANDS of hours in it.

Its a brilliant game though, and i loved it to death (which explains why I would play it regularly). Its just that the amount of IAPs and the money/time it takes to 'actually' finish this, is just absurd.

So playing it for an eternity, i finally parted ways with it and got back to my real life.

Add the fact that EA claimed that RR3 is here to stay, and i guess they weren't lying because this is ONE game they plan to update for a long long time. Even now new cars are being added which so makes me want to play it again, but when i recall my life back in those days when was playing it ... i simply don't bother lol.

John Smith

Boom Beach comes to mind

Michael Nedoma

Wait. Did I miss something? I can clearly see when an app has in-app purchases. Is it just me? I thought it's being displayed no matter what country you are..

richardarkless

It does, but politicians aren't known for being intelligent, especially when it involves Technology

Sigh. All this situation does is harm honest developers and users willing to pay for content.

1st. games were pay up front and users complained for free/trials.
2nd games were free/trials with IAP users complained for pay up front.

Developers are going to do what ever makes sense for them to make the most money, users will always complain. Don't demonize a medium because of shady developers! Users saying "i will never buy a game with IAP" is synonymous with saying "i will never use a credit card" because u had one CC that had a outrageous interest rate. (not sure where im going with all this except to say ignorance is bliss).

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nuh nuh, nope.
Everything was fine when you bought a game and had a full game. You can/should offer a DEMO version of the full featured game.
Developers nowadays be like: look this free game, too bad you need to pay to go past that level <= That f*cks the feeling of beating a game without cheats and makes the whole experience boring, be you either a paid or a free user. That's bad.
(EA/Gameloft/many others are doing the same with paid games. That's bad bad.)

I'm ok with games having IAP if it's meant to unlock new content/personalization, etc. Just like Smash Hit (come on, you don't need a checkpoint to beat a game) or Little Big War (You can play the maps you paid for but can also get new maps without needing to buy a whole new game).
See? It's possible to get a free or paid game with IAP if you know how to do it. But most games with IAP are actually giving a frustrating experience rather than improving it.

primalxconvoy

Ouya offered this very same system and then caved in and retracted it to "support" (lazy/greedy) devs. Thing is, I doubt that they have actually improved sales of their games overall by removing free demos and only just encouraged piracy.

Matthew Fry

There are few ways to implement IAPs that will both yield a lot of income and not exploit the customer. Reason being that the business model is not inherently consumer friendly.

William

Your statement is wrong on so many levels. There are zero ways to implement IAP that effect how consumer friendly they are or arnt. You are equating IAP to how they are used, they are not the same thing.

Example. You have one of these games abused IAP, horrible practice, people hate. Then you have another game, 100% playable, dev decides to extend the game and releases a $1 expansion as an IAP.

Both use IAP, one will almost always be hated, one will be fine. So in this change(the article) the second dev is now be discriminated against because of other games that abused the system and users who freaked out. All because he chose to use the most logical and best method for his users to deliver them more content.

Thats what this change does, hurts honest devs and users. Doesn't fix the issue, unless you consider separating applications by a statistic that in no way equates to consumer preference besides what they think they want.

Matthew Fry

I said there are few ways. Including, but not limited to, added content and full game unlocks. Regardless, the IAP system is flawed in that it hides the true cost of parts of the game or app behind an install. You don't know how much or for what purpose. People (at least here) have looked to reviewers to give an overview of this and make decisions based on that. This is why the system (not how they are used) is consumer unfriendly.

I agree that lumping IAPs into a single group is not the final goal but Google is doing this anyway by including the moniker 'Includes in-app purchases.' Google needs to create a system in which the IAPs can be enumerated on the store page. This is an awesome thing that Apple has done forever that Google seems to not want to do.

William

My apologies then for mis understanding you.

I agree, listing the IAP and what they are used for would be a much better solution.

Fair enough, considering they're not really free.. They should call them "Pay to win" games

cy_n_ic

Vote to relabel all terrible iap games as kardashiapps

Kurama91

this is bad

Nasko Hristov

Finally some good stuff for being part of EU.

Matthew Fry

They made microUSB standard as well. Except for Apple because Apple has more money than the EU.

MindFever

Apple has more money than all the EU? So Apple's income is greater than all of the major European countries (France,Germany,U.K.,Netherlands etc) + others combined? That's bullshit

Matthew Fry

*rolls eyes* I was being hyperbolic.

Matthew Fry

This is a step in the right direction, if done correctly. There's no reason why these need to be relabeled in a way that is detrimental to honest developers. Having it say "In-App Purchases" instead of "Free" would be fine. I like that because the point of the label in the first place is to identify the cost. The cost of a genuinely free game is free. The cost of an upfront 2.99 game is 2.99. The cost of a free + IAP game is the IAPs.

Well the IAPs are optional so technically the games with IAPs are free. So the cost of a free + IAP game are not definitely the IAPs. But I agree it's a step in the right direction. It eliminates the developers that put one level in a game for free and rest leave as IAPs and lure the people on the FREE tag in the Play store.

jesuguru

If one of the biggest problems driving this push-back is kids abusing the system and racking up IAPs on their parents' CC, how will this change help?
Kids are smart - they learn to look past what is said, to what is actually doable (and what their friends/schoolmates/playmates are able to do). Whether or not these games are labelled "free", they *in fact* will remain free for kids to continue downloading if not controlled and supervised (parents' job).

Bojan Tomic

Easy. Don't give children smartphones. Give them Nokia 3310 or something.
Snake is the best game there is.

Sergii Pylypenko

Would be nice to have third 'absolutely free / gratis with no IAP' category on Play Store, so my own games would be promoted, hehe.

primalxconvoy

I think games should be labelled "free", " pay to play " and "pay to win" and/or a ratings system that encompasses these and similar caveats put upon a game's design. I'd love for Shamesoft and cronies to have to refer to their games as such and would love to watch them squirm at game shows when asked "what typeofgame is this?" and then have to ask truthfully.

I think better labelling would empower the average (aka: "dumb") customer and give grEAd and chums pause for thought when delivering their next sales pitch for a freemium game.

Thomas

Yep, if they get their own category hopefully it will be enough that they can't as easily use the free-section as essentially linkbait.

I only feel a bit sad for those who use IAP's more legitimately, i.e. removing ads or one-time unlocks of the "whole" game because the free game is essentially a demo, as well as people who only have IAP's for non-gameplay reasons (skins, new models, etc)

For the first two, maybe Google could make demo/full game system instead, but the last one is a tough one.

abobobilly

What word would they use inplace of "Free"?

"Half-Free"?

sirtao

You guys are forgetting something: this is about EUROPE. Many European states have SPECIFIC laws andor rules about what "free"(or the local language equivalent) means when applied to trade and advertising. Which usually is "a free product is free in its entirety".
EU simply stated that applies to apps.

Thomas

Bingo, it's amazing how hard it is for certain people to understand.

iTunex

European countries must follow the guidelines of the Commission.

Tom

I wish we could still filter on paid and free games though? Or is there a solution for this?

While I think it's a good step forward, I still think a lot of the onus needs to come back to the parents. Seriously, when will parents start taking responsibility for their children and what they are doing? If you've got a mobile device which you know if link to some kind of funding/money source, you don't just hand it to your child unless you are damn sure it's protected - regardless of whether or not the apps say Free, in-app Purchases, or otherwise.

Parents of the world, take some fucking responsibility for your own device and overall, what your child is doing with it. Stop hand balling the blame. :(

Some pushchairs have instructions that include "remove baby",
And in the UK - I have actually seen drinks (the ones with the straws) that give instructions on how to use the straw to pierce the little foil bit on the drink.

And let's not forget about parents who let their kids play in sand dunes, act all shocked and surprised when the dune collapses on the kid who was digging a tunnel through it (while the parents watched), is killed - and then the parents demand the council put up signs warning people that sand dunes can collapse.......

At this point I am surprised that Microwaves don't come with instructions not to circumvent the door mechanism to force the Microwave to operate with the door open.

Just remember - for every stupid instruction/warning you see - it means someone somewhere was stupid enough to do it. So when you see for example - a TV manual that warns not to put plants on top of it and water them, or not to use it outside in the rain...... that means someone, somewhere did that in the past.

Jasonc07

I'm in Australia and I noticed the titles change recently to remove any mention of free. Here is what I see.

Jasonc07

Second picture

Richard Sullivant

I'm definitely not a fan. Ignoring the relevant and very pressing issue of parents (ahem, "grown-ups") needing to understand the various ways their credit cards may be something worth keeping tabs on -- aka "money has consequences!", not all IAPs are made equal(ly evil). I've grubbily enjoyed Bejeweled Blitz and its relatively unobtrusive ads/promotiond for years, and that's a frigging EA game. Not exactly the same as the "pay to win" games already frequently discussed here (often by EA, yes). Hell, a lot of IAPs for many smaller game developers simply serve as an easy donation mechanism, as I doubt singular and tiny ads at the bottom of infrequently visited settings menus really bother anyway. I'm always happy to support those folks with a token (often sub-€1) IAP, just because. But unfortunately their free games are no longer free, apparently, and unlike Gameloft or EA, will certainly take a hit.

They'd be as well to change it in the US too - because:
Lawsuits in the US (where let's face it - they are much more likely, don't bother complaining to some independent body - just go straight to suing the company) are likely to go along the lines of -
"My son racked up X dollars of in-game purchases, this is unacceptable, Google changed the way it works in Europe but not here, therefore Google is evil and owes me a bazillion dollars" and..... if Judge Koh is there that day, that mother will probably win and Google will owe a bazillion dollars.....

godutch

How dare these people tell google how to run its business? Who do they represent, who voted for them, no one ever voted for these people. In fact the only chance we had when we could vote for them, we voted overwhelmingly against them. Google should ignore the commision and listen to the people instead.

Thomas

Google is perfectly free to ignore the advice, in fact Apple is currently doing so.

SuperMario7

And looking at the comments the vast majority of people on this seem to agree with the EU decision .....

Also why should Google listen to "the people"? I hope you're smart enough to know that Google doesn't give a shit about your views or mine, they're worth billions of dollars and we're the product they gather data from

Dave

Finally!

Jonathan Taylor

When blizzard brings hearthstone 2 android then all the android fan boys can see what a true free to play game with in app purchases should be like.

RobertSGrant

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job
I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check
for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately
was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go﻿
to tech tab for work detail

✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒ Jobs700.com

==============================

andrew__des_moines

Good

Android Developer

But now how would you look for such apps?
Some apps have in-app billing but are still very usable even without buying anything in them...
What would be the label for in-app-billing based apps?

mobilegamerbr

Is there any game 100% free on Google Play? I don't think so

WhyWai

yes there are, with ads support.

Miloš Simić

I'm playing RR2 instead of playing RR3 only because RR2 has a proper gameplay while in stupid RR3 you have to pay for every single shit and you are sometimes forced to buy things with money they gave you for "free".

WhyWai

This should be implemented worldwide!

Linda George

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had.
Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474
this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was
bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go﻿ to
tech tab for work detail

✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒ Jobs700.COM

==================================

Yuji Lop

What we really need is an Advanced Play Store Search tool.

I mean, having checkboxes for price (Free/IAP/Paid; sort by Price), Permissions, Ratings and Number of Active Users would make it so much easier for users to choose great apps on the store.

fanoush

Looks like they solved it in the easy way. The simply removed the word "FREE" altogether. Either there is a price or there is empty space where the word FREE was. No categorization between those really free and IAP.